01 DOMINADOR BUSTOS v.
ANTONIO LUCERO, CFI Judge HELD/RULING:
G.R. No. L-2068 | 20 OCT 1948 | J. TUASON | ACIDO
TOPIC: Criminal law
DOCTRINE: As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares
what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as
distinguished from the procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by
which one who commits a crime is to be punished. Preliminary investigation is
eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a criminal
prosecution.
ER: The accused Bustos, after pleading not guilty to the criminal charges (not
specified) against him, moved to cross-examine the witnesses who testified for
the issuance of the arrest warrant against him. The prosecution invoked section
11 of Rule 108 (Rights of defendant after arrest… The testimony of the witnesses
need not be reduced to writing but that of the defendant shall be taken in
writing and subscribed by him). Bustos had his case forwarded to the CFI, where
he moved for a similar cross-examination; denied. SC denied mandamus. On
MR, Bustos argues that said section 11 impairs substantive rights. SC held that
section 11 is not a substantive law or substantive right; it is procedural. See
doctrine.
FACTS:
1. The accused Bustos, assisted by counsel, appeared at the preliminary
investigation. In that investigation, the justice of the peace informed
him of the charges and asked him if he pleaded guilty or not guilty,
upon which he entered the plea of not guilty.
2. "Then his counsel moved that the complainant present her evidence so
that she and her witnesses could be examined and cross-examined in
the manner and form provided by law." The fiscal and the private
prosecutor objected, invoking section 11 of rule 108, and the objection
was sustained. "In view thereof, the accused's counsel announced his
intention to renounce his right to present evidence," and the justice of
the peace forwarded the case to the CFI.
3. Bustos filed a motion with the CFI of Pampanga after he had been
bound over to that court for trial, praying that the record of the case
be remanded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol, the court
of origin, in order that Bustos might cross-examine the complainant and
her witnesses in connection with their testimony, on the strength of
which warrant was issued for the arrest of the accused.
4. The motion was denied. Hence, this petition for mandamus.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Lucero acted in excess of his jurisdiction or in abuse of
discretion in refusing to grant the accused's motion to return the record for said
purpose. NO. Petition dismissed. MR also denied. The contents of the SC’s
resolution of the MR are important, so they are included in the ruling.
 [Main decision] In Dequito and Saling Buhay vs. Arellano, the Court
allowed what Bustos was denied: to recall the complainant and her
witnesses at the preliminary investigation so that they might be cross-
examined, we sustained the justice of the peace's order.
 But the SC made it clear that the "defendant cannot, as a matter of
right, compel the complaint and his witnesses to repeat in his presence
what they had said at the preliminary examination before the issuance
of the order of arrest." The constitutional right of an accused to be
confronted by the witnesses against him does not apply to preliminary
hearings, nor will the absence of a preliminary examination be an
infringement of his right to confront witnesses. As a matter of fact,
preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without
infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process
clause to a fair trial.
 [Resolution of MR] It is contended that section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court infringes section 13, Article VIII, of the Constitution (SC’s power
to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice… Said rules shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights.) It is said that the rule in question deals with
substantive matters and impairs substantive rights.
 We cannot agree with this view. We are of the opinion that section 11
of Rule 108, like its predecessors, is an adjective law and not a
substantive law or substantive right. Substantive law creates substantive
rights and the two terms in this respect may be said to be synonymous.
 Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights which one enjoys
under the legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations.
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and
regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise
to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are established
to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which
prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their
invasion.
 As a rule of evidence, section 11 of Rule 108 is also procedural. Criminal
procedure refers to pleading, evidence, and practice. We cannot tear
down section 11 of Rule 108 on constitutional grounds without throwing
out the whole code of evidence embodied in these Rules.
 We do not believe that the curtailment of the right of an accused in a
preliminary investigation to cross-examine the witnesses who had given
evidence for his arrest is of such importance as to offend against the
constitutional inhibition. As we have said in the beginning, preliminary
investigation is not an essential part of due process of law. It may be
suppressed entirely, and if this may be done, mere restriction of the
privilege formerly enjoyed thereunder cannot be held to fall within the
constitutional prohibition.
 While section 11 of Rule 108 denies to the defendant the right to cross-
examine witnesses in a preliminary investigation, his right to present his
witnesses remains unaffected, and his constitutional right to be
informed of the charges against him both at such investigation and at
the trial is unchanged. In the latter stage of the proceedings, the only
stage where the guaranty of due process comes into play, he still enjoys
to the full extent the right to be confronted by and to cross-examine
the witnesses against him. The degree of importance of a preliminary
investigation to an accused may be gauged by the fact that this
formality is frequently waived.